357). He argues Bishop Sullivan’s essay on legalizing euthanasia; the slippery-slope: if a killing was allowed, it would make the world a bad place. According to Philippa Foot, she thinks that active euthanasia is morally right in some individual case (Luper and Brown, p. 358). Active euthanasia should be acceptable because elderly or ill people who are suffering and wants to put an end to their life. However, according to Rachel, he says that “we ought to enforce a rigorous rule against it.” (Luper and Brown, p. 358).
The slippery slope argument claims that if an action, such as euthanasia, were to be permitted, then society will be led down the slippery slope, or be permitting other actions that are morally wrong, “in general form, it means that if we allow something relatively harmless today, we may start a trend that results in something currently unthinkable becoming accepted” (“Anti-euthanasia”). The House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics concluded it is virtually impossible to ensure that all acts of euthanasia are truly voluntary. The idea that patients should have the right to decide when to end their life would impose on the doctors a duty to kill, thus... ... middle of paper ... ...not possible. It includes compassion and support for family and friends. It affirms life and regards death as a normal process, neither hastening nor postponing death, but providing relief from suffering” (“Anti-euthanasia”).
In Daniel Callahan’s article, “Physician-Assisted Dying: Self-Determination Run Amok”, he explains his stance on euthanasia. Callahan believes that doctors should not have the power to hasten death. Instead, he believes that terminally ill patients should be allowed to die, but killing should be banned. Callahan compares euthanasia to slavery: Slavery was long ago outlawed on the ground that one person should not have the right to own another, even with the other’s permission…it is a fundamental moral wrong for
Euthanasia is a rejection of the importance and value of human life. People who encourage Euthanasia generally stated that it is already considered some what acceptable to take a human life under some conditions such as self defence, but they miss the point that when one kills for self defence, most of the times they are saving an innocent life, either someone else's or their own. With Euthanasia no one's life is being saved but instead life is only being taken away. Dr. Andre Bourque, chief of the department general medicine at the Centre hospitallier de l'Universite de Montreal, said he does not have a problem with a patient cho... ... middle of paper ... ...pose of a loved one instead of fighting for the best treatment and caring for them until their very last breath. Instead of considering death for a loved one, focus on creating cures and being optimistic about the situation.
Is it the physical pain or is it depression that leads a person to desire death? If foreign countries allow, and cannot control their own "mercy killings," why wouldn't the United States follow in their footsteps? These questions and life are too often taken for granted. Euthanasia goes against our morals and duties as human beings. It should not be legalized in the United States, and where it is legal it should be stopped.
Active Euthenasia – From A Kantian Perspective Euthanasia is one of society's more widely debated moral issues of our time. Active euthanasia is; "Doing something, such as administering a lethal drug, or using other ways that will cause a person's death." In the other hand, Passive euthanasia is; "Stopping (or not starting) a treatment, that will make a person die, the condition of the person will cause his or her death." It seems that this one is not to debate, as much as the other one (active). I have chosen to look more closely at the issue of active euthanasia, and that it should not be considered ethical, by Kantian standards.
The topic of euthanasia and assisted suicide is very controversial. People who support euthanasia say that it is someone 's right to end their own life in the case of a terminal illness. Those in favor of this right consider the quality of life of the people suffering and say it is their life and, therefore, it is their decision. The people against euthanasia argue that the laws are in place to protect people from corrupt doctors. Some of the people who disagree with assisted suicide come from a religious background and say that it is against God’s plan to end one 's life.
Should it be legal or illegal? Some of the people who are against Euthanasia have argued that due to religious reasoning’s, taking a life, no matter the circumstance is not in god’s plan. They believe that killing someone through euthanasia is in fact comparable to murder. This is also referred to as “assisted suici... ... middle of paper ... ... Universal Law. I believe Kant would be in favor of euthanasia because it would be the doctor’s duty to help a patient out by taking him/her out of misery by using euthanasia.
The Doctrine can be considered a simple prohibition of murder, ensuring that doctors do not without ordinary care, because doing so would be considered killing. Rachels example seen convincing because they deal with withholding ordinary care but he fails to distinguish ordinary from extraordinary, then attacks the lack of ordinary care. This can be found in the Downs Syndrome Baby example, where severe down’s syndrome babies born with intestinal obstructions. Sometimes in such cases the baby is permitted to die. Rachels argues that in such cases we find compelling moral grounds for preferring active euthanasia to passive euthanasia in the vastly greater degree of suffering involved in letting the baby die.
The other procedural classification, passive euthanasia, is the withholding of life-sustaining treatments. Some people feel as if the definition of passive euthanasia is debatable. I believe that euthanasia, as a drastic course of action, should not be legal. In my opinion, the only exception to this that should exist is euthanasia being used to carry out punishment for a crime. Euthanasia should only be used to punish criminals who have committed a crime that the punishment of their crime is the death penalty.